The proposed survey, which was discussed at a hearing earlier this month, initially would have polled up to 2,000 citizens, but that number can be lowered to 600 or 800, Fata’s attorneys said in another court filing. It would ask questions about President Barack Obama, Gov. Rick Snyder and possible election opponent Mark Schauer, and whether the minimum wage should be raised. Questions would then be asked about Fata’s trial.

Advertisement

The proposed poll would ask “based on the news coverage (of Fata’s case), ‘Do you think he is guilty of the fraudulent conduct of which he is accused,’ and, can he ‘receive a fair trial,’” according to a prior document filed by Borman.

“The Court tentatively concluded that there could be prejudice in such a survey, given the 2,000 citizen contacts and the likelihood that each person contacted would contact others to discuss the contact, and with the proposed script implying that the trial was as significant to the citizenry as the President or the Governor,” Borman wrote in the filing, dated Feb. 5.

That filing sought responses from both sides.

“There is little reason to doubt that the proposed survey is a communication within the protection of the First Amendment,” wrote Christopher Andreoff and Mark Kriger, attorneys for Fata.

“Accordingly, even though the Court’s concerns about the potential impact on potential (jurors) are not unweighty, (Fata’s) right to proceed (with the poll) is a weighty, and protected, one.”

Fata’s attorneys said the political questions are asked in order to yield a more valid survey.

“If respondents are told that the sole purpose for the poll is to ask about a court case, the people that are not interested in court cases would be more likely to hang up, and people who are extremely interested in court cases will be more likely to answer the poll, unfairly skewing the sample,” Fata’s attorneys wrote.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office agreed that the poll should not be prohibited.

“Defendants often utilize opinion polling in an attempt to demonstrate that extreme circumstances exist warranting a transfer of venue,” the filing, signed by U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade, stated.

“However, opinion polls tend to be only marginally relevant to a change of venue analysis, because the district court may consider or may disregard opinion polls.

“With regard to the specific poll questions currently proposed, the government declines to comment on the construction of the survey, because the Court should not become involved in designing a poll for the defense.”